kbone

Hi- Don't mean to be nosy or butt in, but how long has it been since the (for want of a better word) 'event' happened? I recognize certain familiar aspects of your dialogues with others and monologues. The realization does not translate well to the consensus paradigm. No biggie; just get used to it. At least they don't (actually) crucify or burn peeps at the stake anymore, hehe. Anyway, just thought I'd ping you. Peace, Sista. K

I think she was just noting (perhaps based on her own memory) what the mind often does 'after' such events. Unconsciously, and as a sort of momentum of 'reasoning', the mind takes over. The appearance/construct of the 'I' held in mind takes credit for finding and/or being absolute truth; whereas, such appearances of I/ideas/experiences/memory/stuff only exist within/as the Absolute (which was glimpsed). Was there a 'you' or a 'god' there, or is that just the story, a mental overlay that the mind has conjured based on an assumptive 'I' and memories of an event of spaciousness/bliss? Was anything 'learned', or was there just a 'Being conscious as Consciousness'/ ABSOLUTE NOTHING type of dealio? Perhaps, we could tinker with your avatar name and say 'the Atman is within Brahman'. We're tinkering here in a way that won't 'add layers' of explanation and rev up the mind too too much (it can be a lil dominating stinkshit at such times- based on memory). But, perhaps the attempt here is to 'preserve' or bring in to focus some of the clarity that was realized so it can inform the mind of the Space within which it appears. The human mind is a tool, not the master. The distinction is clear. As per Plato's Cave allegory, 'you' had a glimpse outside the cave, and canNOT for your life NOT bestow value on the experience, but it somehow alludes you as to how or why it happened. And typically, the mind wants answers. The mind might start reeling a bit in an attempt to bring it into the confines of its reason of cause/effect, 'me' centeredness, and all the rest. Just relax a bit, settle into that spaciousness that you gnossis/realized is immediately present/available, and let it inform mind of its secondary role. The mind is the source of all follies of pursuit, from HERE/NOW... blank TV screens and all. There is not 'more and more consciousness' to pursue. No thing has been lost, physically, experientially or otherwise. There is nothing to say, but there is always more to say. There are no more levels to conjure, no more infinities to imagine.... Just THIS, appearances of thoughts/things popping up and disappearing in/as what I AM. FREE

Yes, apprehending the absence is the key; not as an idea, but as the realization. What falls away thereafter is gives rise to clarity, which then informs the mind of its secondary role: memories, thoughts, fantastic woo woo, perspectives, perceptions, and all. All those thingies are clearly appearing and disappearing 'out front/within'. Truth is either right HERE, right NOW, or it ain't Truth. "NOTHING is unexplainable. EVERYTHING is a mystery."

"How do you really know... if there are many degrees of awakening, which there are, how do you really know what level your teacher or school is at? How do you know? You're just assuming. You don't really know. So just recognize that. And then from that place of not knowing, your mind can be open to new possibilities." ~Leo Gura, Outrageous experiments in Consciousness- 30 Awakenings in 30 Days, April 19, 2020 What teaching are you assuming is being underestimated? Got all of what?

Thanks for sharing. I hadn't watched him in a while. He's an authentic human being, has a clear mind, and is honest enough to say when he doesn't know/gnossis. There's also one with him being interviewed with Rupert Spira in which they discuss BK's analytical idealism and non-duality. I remember rezzin' a bit with some of their dialogue.

Any luck or insights? More confusion? Curious.

Curious where this goes. I think what some have been calling 'logic', I'd be more inclined to call it Intelligence. But, with that in mind, I wouldn't be looking to infer agency of any sort, or anthropomorphize it as some skydaddy and all the rest. It's not necessary to think of Intelligence as some kind of grand plan (strictly order), and perhaps more like childlike creativity, which, logically, is more aligned with joy, spontaneity, freedom of expression, and inspiration.... authentic, of course. I tend to have little 'issues' with the word "real" for several reasons.

I'm curious, do you have a gift with respect to shamanism? Have you noticed a strength of intuition, a sense for the non-mentio-physical aspects of 'reality' (that word kind of annoys me, hehe), or a presence of/as existence that you would be willing to share? I do not 'know' a lot about shamanism, but have met several in different countries and live with someone who I suspect has genetic memory of being one. She's quite a gal, to be sure. I bow to her trans-rational logic, like, all the time, if ya know what I mean. Other than that, when living in the mountains, a few siddhis emerged from the space that was apparent. Nature taught the mind A LOT.

1- One can only point to Truth, and it cannot be described in any way that conveys it in a way that any mind, uninformed by Truth itself, can 'understand'. The distinction is absolute. I do NOT get involved in eristic arguments as such, because it is not my intent to simply win an argument. But, when someone shows genuine curiosity, I don't mind entering a conversation about Truth. It is the only thing that will set one authentically FREE. 2- Idealism can be a way to approach the convo in a manner that is conducive to a healthy discussion. Above is a video with Bernardo Kastrup, whom I think is someone genuinely interested in that kind of discovery. Would I say that idealism is the end all be all? Not really, but it has value. As far as alignment with expressions go, I'd say Zen or Advaita/Non-duality provide good value. That said, most minds just cherry pick the stuff they like, repeat phrases ad nauseum, collect ideas presented, etc, but never actually REALIZE what they're pointing to. 3- Yes, eventually philosophy does turn in on itself, resulting in all sorts of paradoxes. It's the nature of the bifurcating mind, which is why I hammer on it more than most peeps are inclined to do. As for the "escaping", yes, I do get what you mean. Peeps often are strongly attached to their ideas and/or have woo woo experiences that they like to hold up as proof of their superiority or omnipotence, so such escapism is bound to get squeezed out of the order of their arguments. After all, wisdom begins when one knows what one doesn't know <tips hat to Socrates>. 4- I wouldn't really argue 'for' any religio-pholisophical stance, but me more inclined to put it under the scrutiny of one's faculties. Idealism might serve as a good vehicle of choice to take one to the precipice in every mind, where one has come naked, stripped down to the very core of existence itself, humbled in the face of ITS immensity, and take the plunge. Most shudder at the thought, stay away from such ledges, and prefer to remain comfy and clothed in their ideals that cloak their anxiety and existential suffering born of feeling separate from the whole and/or unworthy. That's a mind game, sure, but it takes bravery and transhuman-like willingness to even get to that precipice, much less jump into the void. In other words, it ain't for everybody. 5- The concept of god refers to the same 'thinglessness' as infinite (endless, expansive and clear space of potentiality--- FREE) or eternal(endless time without beginning or end... Alpha-Omega, if you will----PEACE). The realization of IT is a doozy, to be sure. But it's more like the mind's surrender; the shift that moves one's sense of/as EXISTENCE beyond the prison bars of the mind's beliefs. There was never a lock to be picked; it was simply an ignorance of the bifurcating mind.... the master <sneers and giggles at Nurse Ratched>.

Well ooookkkkaaaaaay then, mental masturbation it is!! 🤣 So, imagine if you're Infinite/Source/God/whatevs, and the entire appearing EVERYTHING is your body. When you close your Infinite Eyeball, plug up your Infinite Ears etc etc, what happens to EVERYTHING? Pretty easy so far, and no one and no thing is stuck anywhere. Then, bring it back to human thinking capacity in one's present state, right here, right now. Do the same thing. Now, if one says the body is still there even though there's no perception of it, one is using thinking/logic to draw the highly probable conclusion, yes? If one says the body is not perceived, that would be honest also, yes? So, what is the construct of self, and who is stuck in the perceived universe? Or, is it the universe/self that is perceived within/as Consciousness, that you've stated as fundamental? If the latter, then whatthewho is stuck, like anywhere? This is not a question asking for a mind-based answer; it's a curiosity about what in blazes is going on prior to what the mind does with all of its memory, assumptions and logic.... the realization.

What's up? Ya mean literally? Figuratively? Please clarify the question!

He does seem to do a lot of cheerleading, don'tee

Most of those examples are about quality of logic, hehe. The question of why/why not the universe doesn't just disappear for no reason could be an interesting one. What do you mean by it? Sure, consciousness is more fundamental than logic in how I would express it. It doesn't happen until the intellect is engaged. I can simply look and perceive without thinking or logic. Often, that's when there's more mental space, which is indicative of greater potential and awareness of peripheral movement, whether it be mental or environmental.

Logic is a tool. Perhaps too much thinking. Thinking is born of the mind. Logic is born of thinking. Thinking is not pre-requisite for simply being. So maybe you're tinkering with the 'thinking/reason born of the Mind of God' dealio, but then you'd be saying that God can't simply Be, which would be counter to Infinite Potential. Otherwise, it would be mixing contexts. Typically what transpires is that something happens, and only later does mind ascribe a reason for how/why it happened based on its limited view of events, conditioning at the moment of perception, and beliefs of unperceived events (aka, logical jumps). Quite often, that reason/logic shifts over time. This is conditional to one's faculties for reasoning/logic and memory, which change.

Logic is born of the mind, yes. What's considered logical' is conditional: experiential, familial, conditional, etc. It appears only when the neocortex is engaged. Overall, it's purddy dang useful in convos and everyday lifing, but not always, if you know what I mean.

Welp, maybe we conceptualize what concepts are differently! Pretty much any "thing" conveyed via language is a concept about the thingy being referred to. The menu ain't the meal. I did not tell you to touch grass; it was a lot of concepts, many of which were newly contextualized and/or presented with lines of reasoning/logic holding them together in your novel way. My point about the Absolute is that it is ALWAYS immediately 'available'. prior to and inclusive of mind's conceptions about it. Yeah, not sure if I've ever seen the words infinite/infinity bandied about so much, either. Not really necessary, but I guess some people like the expression for various reasons. I mean, it just seems that if there are 'more' infinities, then the previous one was not IT, basically. Can one get new insights within Infinity? Sure, but insights are mind stuff, too. I totally get the juxtaposition of NOTHING/EVERYTHING, as it was the most simplified expression after the cataclysmic event that brought down my existential house of cards.

@gengar That's purddy complicated, so I'll read it later with a fresher mind. My point wasn't about what idealism says or doesn't say; it was about how words/ideas are conceptualized in one mind versus another in a convo about Truth (knowing it cannot be conveyed from one mind to another via the conceptualization). My original post in this thread was in reply to @Bjorn K Holmstrom and it was with respect to how nuanced the concept of idealism can be and the apparent skepticism that might arise from a convo about it and its pertinence to potentially realizing Truth.

You're juggling a lot of conceptualizations there. What do the concepts of Infinity, God, God's love, good, and evil mean in your mind? At present, you are working with a paradox, all of which only exist within the mind via its conceptions and their apparent conflict with each other. Have you ever read that famous Nisargadatta quote about Love and Wisdom? It might help if you were to contemplate it during a walk in nature. "Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. And between the two, my life flows."

@Someone here Welp, to be honest, I don't know anyone here that well. When someone starts going into idealism as the only/best term to use, I listen to see what they have to say out of curiosity. I didn't watch the video, but based on what the title was, I assume he's just using the 'Mind of God' dealio with respect to idealism. Could be wrong, doesn't matter. Sure, I've heard and used lots of metaphors, analogies, etc in attempts to point to what cannot be described. Many folks use different terms for the same dealio, and folks end up talking past each other based on an assumption or a misunderstanding. I'm well aware of the fact that the failure rate is uniquely high, hehe, so I tend toward different unique ways of expression at times. Every now and then, it might help, who knows. Most peeps are generally averse to futility. I don't mind getting into the extreme expressions to perhaps jolt a mind, but I'm also generally purddy good at spotting when the mind has taken over and it is driving the convo unawares. It's kinda like God has fallen into its own dream. People have all kinds of 'experiences' and make all kinds of assumptions based on those experiences...happens all the time. Truth is much simpler.

@ExploringReality Interesting. Noted.

@Someone here Sure, it's non-duality 101 stuff.

@Leo Gura I understand the term and what it points to. It's not complicated at all once it's realized. But sure, mind complicates things and mind denies things, often without even knowing it's doing so.

No other word for what? What is pointed to is trans-rationally simple, and not confusing at all. What typically makes it difficult or confusing is that most will use their minds to search for it. That's why a term like 'idealism' can be misconstrued in convos, depending on interlocutors' understanding of the terminology.

@inFlow Buenoooo.

@Leo Gura Sure, you're just using your word of choice. No biggie... call it whatcha want to.